According to Live Action, six studies in the past four years indicate that there are thousands of "missing girls" in the U.S., many from sex-selective abortion. The U.K., India, Australia, and other countries ban sex-selective abortion, but the U.S., save for three states, does not.

At 5/30/2012 3:11:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:So women have the right to body, but this isn't true when they chose sex-selective abortion?

Stating that sex-selective abortion is wrong seems to go against the entire pro-choice argument.

There allowed to that is the whole point. They get to use medicaid abort the baby and keep trying till they get pregnant with what they want....and you find this ok???Just because ones pro-choice doesn't mean they have to be ok with all the tax dollars going to pay for idiot women that what a boy over a girl.

At 5/30/2012 3:11:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:So women have the right to body, but this isn't true when they chose sex-selective abortion?

Stating that sex-selective abortion is wrong seems to go against the entire pro-choice argument.

There allowed to that is the whole point. They get to use medicaid abort the baby and keep trying till they get pregnant with what they want....and you find this ok???Just because ones pro-choice doesn't mean they have to be ok with all the tax dollars going to pay for idiot women that what a boy over a girl.

I'm pro-life actually. I'm stating that the argument doesn't make sense from a pro-choice perspective.

Are you against medicaid dollars being uses for abortions? Yes or no? If so, why does it matter the particular reason why the abortion occurs?

'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13

At 5/30/2012 3:11:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:So women have the right to body, but this isn't true when they chose sex-selective abortion?

Stating that sex-selective abortion is wrong seems to go against the entire pro-choice argument.

There allowed to that is the whole point. They get to use medicaid abort the baby and keep trying till they get pregnant with what they want....and you find this ok???Just because ones pro-choice doesn't mean they have to be ok with all the tax dollars going to pay for idiot women that what a boy over a girl.

I'm pro-life actually. I'm stating that the argument doesn't make sense from a pro-choice perspective.

Are you against medicaid dollars being uses for abortions? Yes or no? If so, why does it matter the particular reason why the abortion occurs?

ok I misunderstood you then, but still, I think its stupid you have to be one or the other.

It made sense to me and was the only religion that matched many of my political views. There were a few discrepancies, but overall, it made sense.

I am now against abortion and homosexual unions.

0.O

#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

It made sense to me and was the only religion that matched many of my political views. There were a few discrepancies, but overall, it made sense.

I am now against abortion and homosexual unions.

Wouldn't you be FOR homosexual unions, seeing as any sexual acts carried extra-martially are prohibited under Sikhism? And isn't it illogical to be against unions which have no effect on you anyways? I'm pretty sure that's also a tenet of Sikh.

: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.

At 5/30/2012 3:11:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:So women have the right to body, but this isn't true when they chose sex-selective abortion?

Stating that sex-selective abortion is wrong seems to go against the entire pro-choice argument.

There allowed to that is the whole point. They get to use medicaid abort the baby and keep trying till they get pregnant with what they want....and you find this ok???Just because ones pro-choice doesn't mean they have to be ok with all the tax dollars going to pay for idiot women that what a boy over a girl.

I'm pro-life actually. I'm stating that the argument doesn't make sense from a pro-choice perspective.

Are you against medicaid dollars being uses for abortions? Yes or no? If so, why does it matter the particular reason why the abortion occurs?

ok I misunderstood you then, but still, I think its stupid you have to be one or the other.

The argument has to be consistent though. It is inconsistent to state that "A women has a right to do with her body what she wants" and then state that "Sex-selective abortion should not be allowed", since both statements cannot be true at the same time.

It made sense to me and was the only religion that matched many of my political views. There were a few discrepancies, but overall, it made sense.

I am now against abortion and homosexual unions.

Wouldn't you be FOR homosexual unions, seeing as any sexual acts carried extra-martially are prohibited under Sikhism?

The solution is thus to prohibit homosexuality. The Akal Thakat's head jathedar ruled that homosexuality is unnatural, and Sikhism defines marriage a union of kinship between a man and a woman. Sikhs are not to endorse homosexual marriages.

And isn't it illogical to be against unions which have no effect on you anyways? I'm pretty sure that's also a tenet of Sikh.

The unions do have an effect on us because they foster immorality. Tolerating homosexual unions leads to tolerance of immorality.

I'm pretty sure that you will bring up Guru Tegh Bahadur's martyrdom for the sake of the Kashmiri Brahmins. The reason that this example does not apply is that he did not sacrifice himself to protect their right to commit immoral practices. Sikhs would not defend or tolerate ritualistic cannibalism, for example, because it is immoral. Even if we disagree with Brahminism, we do not believe it is immoral (except for the caste system) and thus defend the right of adherents to practice it.

At 5/30/2012 3:11:09 PM, darkkermit wrote:So women have the right to body, but this isn't true when they chose sex-selective abortion?

Stating that sex-selective abortion is wrong seems to go against the entire pro-choice argument.

There allowed to that is the whole point. They get to use medicaid abort the baby and keep trying till they get pregnant with what they want....and you find this ok???Just because ones pro-choice doesn't mean they have to be ok with all the tax dollars going to pay for idiot women that what a boy over a girl.

I'm pro-life actually. I'm stating that the argument doesn't make sense from a pro-choice perspective.

Are you against medicaid dollars being uses for abortions? Yes or no? If so, why does it matter the particular reason why the abortion occurs?

ok I misunderstood you then, but still, I think its stupid you have to be one or the other.

The argument has to be consistent though. It is inconsistent to state that "A women has a right to do with her body what she wants" and then state that "Sex-selective abortion should not be allowed", since both statements cannot be true at the same time

No, but she shouldn't be able to take advantage of the system just for us to pay for her to have a boy she cant even afford in the first place. So we just keep paying fort them till she has the boy. That could take along time, not kidding.That's like telling someone they can borrow your car and they take it to mexico.or you can have some of my cake and they leave you a piece and then take the rest.It happens but it doesn't make it right.Only three states ban sex selective abortions. You can be pro choice and be against this kind of misuse of the system.

But i'm really not arguing pro choice aspects, hence i'm pro life. Although I still feel like even a pro choicer should be against this.

At 5/30/2012 3:49:29 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:I almost spilled my smoothie onto my laptop when I read that royal is AGAINST homosexuality and abortions.

Where's the royal I used to know? :(

#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

At 5/30/2012 3:40:58 PM, darkkermit wrote:Not sure if royal is trolling or just very susceptible to propaganda.

Sikhs do not actively seek converts, actually. Anybody who joins the panth is fully responsible for her decision; we tolerate and respect all religions even if we disagree with the practices.

My bet is trolling.

No, it's not trolling.

Royal, What convinces you that Homosexuality is Immoral when before you thought it was A.O.K.?

Homosexuality is a practice that promotes indulgence in lust, which is one of the five evils that we must defeat in order to achieve enlightenment.

Just cuz some guy (granted, he probably wears a rather impressive hat) says it is?

The Akal Thakat has temporal power and the jathedar was chosen by the panth as a whole. His rulings reflect the beliefs of the Sikh community and are backed by the Rehit as well as by Gurmat.

U be defiantly trollin

#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."